UPnP - Multiple Xbox One Gaming Consoles & NAT

I'm wondering if the latest version of Asuswrt-Merlin firmware build for the ASUS RT-AC5300 allows for two Xbox One gaming consoles to achieve OPEN NAT on the same network? I currently have UPnP enabled and using the latest "official" Asus firmware release (3.0.0.4.380_3941). I am only able to get one Xbox One gaming console to achieve OPEN NAT. The second Xbox One always shows MODERATE NAT or STRICT NAT.

Both Xbox One gaming consoles are WIRED directly to the ASUS RT-AC5300 via CAT6 cable.

**Xbox One S wired directly to back of ASUS RT-AC5300 w/ DHCP IP reservation
**Xbox One Elite wired directly to back of HP Network Switch which is wired directly to back of ASUS RT-AC-5300 w/ DHCP IP reservation

Please let me know if you need any additional network configuration information. I'd really like to resolve the issue of only ONE Xbox One gaming console achieving OPEN NAT. Back when I had two Xbox 360's gaming consoles, I was able to achieve OPEN NAT on both consoles using the D'LINK DGL-4500.

Thanks for taking time to respond with any ideas / suggestions / trouble-shooting tips.

Ya I hope we can bring more visibility to this issue, as it's seen with other router Mfrs and not just ASUS.

I this may affect 3rd party FW along with OEM FW.

I believe there are several levels and problems that are a factor in gaining OPEN NAT with two or more game consoles being online at the same time.

1. ISP and Home NAT configuration. We assume that the ISP modem doesn't have NAT and the ASUS router or any external router is the only NAT. This is recommended and preferred for gaming environments. Also wired LAN cable is preferred over wireless and wireless can present various problems and speed issues which can effect in gaming performances.

2. Design of routers NAT, QoS and uPnP and the logic code and handling of gaming consoles and data traffic are more directed towards single game consoles and may not be flexible to handle more than one game console since the average home over the years usually has 1 game console. This may present a limitation on the Mfr router due to its implementation and design of it's UI and it's features. Some router Mfrs use a one IP address per port in there UI, where other router Mfrs may let users input a range of IP addresses in the UI. D-Link is one where there QoS feature seen on older generation routers, users can input Local and Remote IP address range along with a range of port numbers to use. This configuration with the use of uPnP seems to allow two or more game consoles to report OPEN NAT while online with out using any Port Forwarding configurations.

3. Port usage is a factor as in the Xbox Live example mentioned, port 3074 is the main service game port for all XBL games. Only one port can be accessed per device when online so port 3074 is given to single game console when online. This is standard networking and port policy. However if two or more devices are online at the same time and needing to use the same port, if uPnP is enabled on the router, and it's design and configuration is done right, uPnP and the router can use a Virtual port to connect the 2nd device to the gaming service, thus giving same service and NAT condition to the 2nd device, i.e. game console while online at the same time with the first. Ports 3075 thru 3078 have been seen and or mentioned in other forum and online articles.
I have done and seen this with 3 XB1s connected to a DIR-655 Rev B using the following configuration:http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=42011.0
BO3 was the game being played on all 3 consoles.

4. I believe that game console network status and in game network status for NAT conditions may differ depending on networking logic and is handling of any network condition they encounter due to many and various networks seen in the home. I've seen were the Xbox dash board reads OPEN NAT, while the in game NAT status reports Moderate or Strict NAT. i.e. BO3. Not sure which method is correct or weather one or the other network status app is less accurate or more accurate than the other. Things have changed since the XB1 came out with NAT status feature while the older 360 console didn't have this feature and everyone relied on the in game NAT status feature for information. I also remember having two 360s connected and gaming on MW3 and BO2 and both consoles having OPEN NAT.

5. Port usage is also depending upon which game console gets turned on first. First one gets 3074. After that, who knows. Some routers have a "route status" feature that reports IP addresses and ports being used per device. This can be help in seeing what ports are being used by each game console. I have seen 3075 and 3076 being used as well.

My 2 cents!

I would recommend trying the following: Need to disable "Instant ON" on the XB1 and test. This feature was known to cause bad NAT status behavior in the beginning and I haven't seen any information if it's been corrected or not.
Test Scenario:
Enable uPnP only and set IP address reservations for each game console. Don't set up any Port Forwarding rules. Be sure consoles are OFF.
Turn on the 1st game console and check dash board NAT condition then check in game NAT condition.
Turn off the 1st game console and turn on the 2nd game console and check both NAT conditions. This may show uPnP handling performances of the ports and connections and NAT status may or may not be OPEN on both.
Turn OFF the 2nd game console.
Turn ON the 1st game console and check both NAT status. Leave ON.
Turn ON the 2nd game console and check both NAT status. This may show uPnP handling performances of the ports and connections and both NAT status may or may not be OPEN on both.

Test Scenario:
Enable upnp and set IP address reservations for each game console. Be sure consoles are OFF.
Set up QoS rules for the 1st and 2nd game console and see if QoS and uPnP can help with OPEN NAT.
Turn ON the 1st game console and check both NAT status. Leave ON.
Turn ON the 2nd game console and check both NAT status. This may show QoS and uPnP handling performances of the ports and connections and NAT status may or may not be OPEN on both.

Test Scenario:
Disable uPnP and set IP address reservations for each game console. Be sure consoles are OFF.
Set up Port Forwarding or Port Range Trigger rules for the 1st and 2nd game console and see if Port Forwarding can help with OPEN NAT. Configure Port 3074 for 1st game console and 3075 or 3076 or 3077 or 3078 for the 2nd game console.
Turn ON the 1st game console and check both NAT status. Leave ON.
Turn ON the 2nd game console and check both NAT status. This may show Port Forwarding/Triggering handling performances of the ports and connections and NAT status may or may not be OPEN on both.

During any of these test case scenarios, a router reboot maybe needed to clear and flush uPnP and port tables. I might do a reboot after saving the router configuration before turning on the 1st game console.

First of all, console manufacturers will have to stop being cryptic and start explaining what the heck "Open" or "Strict" mean at a technical level. Considering those manufacturers can't even make a distinction between "forwarding a port" and "opening a port", I'm not keeping my hopes high there...

Not sure if that kind of granular detail can be gleamed from them at all. I suppose maybe a level 2 or higher support tech might know. I know that when not using any Port Forwarding and UPnP is only, it's handling of the ports lies in this logic I presume.

What are you trying to gather and get from MS or Sony in that will it help us figure all this out? This is pretty in depth information that I presume the average user may not have need for. Don't get me wrong, anything and trying to figure this out will help we hope. Just not sure were we can gather more details. We can do testing and diagnostics I presume...

What are you trying to gather and get from MS or Sony in that will it help us figure all this out?

Click to expand...

Personally, I'm not trying to gather anything. This is something that the miniupnpd author might be interested, not me - I simply run that UPnP daemon in the firmware.

What would be needed is what is the test doing specifically. What determines that a NAT setup is "Strict" instead of "Open". And also they need to make sure that their test methodology (and their own UPnP code) is correct. I've seen cases where people "fixed" NAT issues simply by rebooting their console, as just putting it in sleep would cause issues. My guess is, console might be forwarding the port at boot time, but if the port forward expires while the console is in sleep mode, it fails to refresh the port mapping with the IGD, something that the reboot takes care of. That would indicate an issue with the console code, which expects port forwards to be permanent.

Wouldn't be the first time that one of them got it wrong. Windows's IGD2 support for instance is currently broken... The miniupnpd author tried to reach out to Microsoft regarding this issue, and never got anywhere, beside "we'll look into it".

Ya I think if we could find out the behavior of uPnP and how it is handling one and two consoles online at the same time, maybe we might figure this out.

Ya I have seen information on "Instant ON" having issues with NAT status. Been like this for a while now. My policy is to disable this feature as I don't need the xbox to be ON immediately when I turn it on.

I'm wondering if setting static IPs on the consoles rather than using IP reservations on the host router could be one test we could try. LIke I said, there seems to be a few variables in this NAT thing with gaming and not sure where the main issue could be. Yes we've seen it were rebooting or power cycling the console fixes NAT or changes NAT condition. Then again sometimes it doesn't. I presume this falls in line maybe with what you mentioned about the consoles wanting to be permanent.

I do know that if I use one particular router, DIR-655 Rev B, I can get OPEN NAT on all consoles both dash board and in game BO3. Just exactly how I can only surmised and inform up to a point. I think we could probably do some data collection here and see what I can get. BiggShooters issue with Asus and I notice with other MFr routers it's been hard to narrow down and figure out how to get OPEN NAT across the board. Even newer generation D-Link routers, I cant' get OPEN NAT across the board.

Ya, when people start to inquire with MS, you lucky to get anything. I managed to find out that the 360Slim has a wireless issue with newer generation routers and will only connect at 11Mb when the adapter supports higher rates. They would connect at supported rates on older model routers but not newer ones. I managed to find out thru a 3rd party that contacted MS said it was the wireless drivers on the 360s and would need updating. MS would look into it. Never saw any results.

Thank you for your time and help. I hope we can continue to work on this and see if we can figure this out.

Personally, I'm not trying to gather anything. This is something that the miniupnpd author might be interested, not me - I simply run that UPnP daemon in the firmware.

What would be needed is what is the test doing specifically. What determines that a NAT setup is "Strict" instead of "Open". And also they need to make sure that their test methodology (and their own UPnP code) is correct. I've seen cases where people "fixed" NAT issues simply by rebooting their console, as just putting it in sleep would cause issues. My guess is, console might be forwarding the port at boot time, but if the port forward expires while the console is in sleep mode, it fails to refresh the port mapping with the IGD, something that the reboot takes care of. That would indicate an issue with the console code, which expects port forwards to be permanent.

Wouldn't be the first time that one of them got it wrong. Windows's IGD2 support for instance is currently broken... The miniupnpd author tried to reach out to Microsoft regarding this issue, and never got anywhere, beside "we'll look into it".

Ya I know that the naming convention and meaning behind them, of there NAT status differs and not sure if they are cross comparable. Seems like maybe however for now, will keep them separate. Sony to Sony and MS to MS.

First of all, console manufacturers will have to stop being cryptic and start explaining what the heck "Open" or "Strict" mean at a technical level. Considering those manufacturers can't even make a distinction between "forwarding a port" and "opening a port", I'm not keeping my hopes high there...

I have used 2 differ routers, a d-link dgl4500 and now asus rt-ac66r. Used them for 2 360s and 2 xb1 and the only time i had nat issues is on the xb1 when i used the instant on feature. If you have that feature on , i can almost guarantee you that is the cause of your nat issues. Put both xb1 on energy saving mode. Don't use port forwarding or port triggering, just use upnp. If you have instant on, turn it off. Reset your router and reset both your xboxes by holding down the power button on the console for 30 seconds.

From my experience with port usage the same xbox would always use port 3074 even if was turned 2nd. My other xb1 would always use some other random port and it would never change. I forget off the top of me head but i recall the same port usage every time i looked. If you do decide to use qos, don't just make a rule for port 3074, instead blanket the whole port range like this 1:65535. I suggest this because sometimes the router will not pick port 3074, it will pick some random port for gaming traffic

I have used 2 differ routers, a d-link dgl4500 and now asus rt-ac66r. Used them for 2 360s and 2 xb1 and the only time i had nat issues is on the xb1 when i used the instant on feature. If you have that feature on , i can almost guarantee you that is the cause of your nat issues. Put both xb1 on energy saving mode. Don't use port forwarding or port triggering, just use upnp. If you have instant on, turn it off. Reset your router and reset both your xboxes by holding down the power button on the console for 30 seconds.

Click to expand...

Even with the Xbox One S and Xbox One Elite in "Energy Saving Mode", only one Xbox One gaming console is able to achieve OPEN NAT. The second Xbox One gaming console ends up with MODERATE NAT [or sometimes STRICT NAT]. I'm not using PORT FORWARD or PORT TRIGGERING. I only have UPnP 'Enabled.' I've reset the Asus RT-AC5300, as well as the Xbox One S gaming console and Xbox One Elite console on several occasions, and the problem persists.

I have used 2 differ routers, a d-link dgl4500 and now asus rt-ac66r. Used them for 2 360s and 2 xb1 and the only time i had nat issues is on the xb1 when i used the instant on feature. If you have that feature on , i can almost guarantee you that is the cause of your nat issues. Put both xb1 on energy saving mode. Don't use port forwarding or port triggering, just use upnp. If you have instant on, turn it off. Reset your router and reset both your xboxes by holding down the power button on the console for 30 seconds.

From my experience with port usage the same xbox would always use port 3074 even if was turned 2nd. My other xb1 would always use some other random port and it would never change. I forget off the top of me head but i recall the same port usage every time i looked. If you do decide to use qos, don't just make a rule for port 3074, instead blanket the whole port range like this 1:65535. I suggest this because sometimes the router will not pick port 3074, it will pick some random port for gaming traffic

Did you view the NAT status from both the dashboard and in game? I know the 360s didn't have status on there dashboards.

Did you have GameFuel configured when you were using the DGL-4500?

Click to expand...

Yes when I used the dgl4500, I played black ops exclusively. Both in game and in the dashboard i had open nat. My son and i could play in the same lobby with no party chat issues. I had to do some configuration changes in the firewall settings for that router but the asus was pretty straight forward.

I also had game fuel set up to. Tried manual rules and in automatic with no issues

It's not recommended to use DMZ as this would cause bad performance behavior for gaming and cause the router to incorrectly assign bandwidth where needed if two or more game consoles were to be online at the same time. DMZ invalidates any QoS and filters and rules and those features would not work. DMZ should be used for devices like VoIP or a configuration that doesn't need any router management or rule configurations.